Or.2 , Rule 2 of C.P.C -First suit for bare injunction as there was threat and second suit for specific performance as the defendant is going to sale to third party - No Or.2, rule 2 - No Relinquishment of right - No bar for filing a second suit with out permission as both are not one and same =2015 S.C.(10/2014) MSKLAWREPORTS 17

In the instant case, as  discussed  above,  suit  for  injunction  was filed since there was threat  given  from  the  side  of  the  defendant  to dispossess him from the suit property.  The plaintiff did  not  allege  that the defendant is threatening to alienate  or  transfer  the  property  to  a third party in order to frustrate the agreement. It is well settled that the ratio of any decision must  be  understood in the background of the facts of that case.  The following  words  of  Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedence have been locus classicus.  “Each case depends on its own facts and  a  close  similarity  between  one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail  may alter the entire aspect, in  deciding  such  cases,  one  should  avoid  the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching  the  colour  of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on  which  side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case  is  not  at all decisive.” -2015 S.C.(10/2014) MSKLAWREPORTS 17

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports